Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality

Multi-criteria optimization (MCO) function has been available on commercial radiotherapy (RT) treatment planning systems to improve plan quality; however, no study has compared Eclipse and RayStation MCO functions for prostate RT planning. The purpose of this study was to compare prostate RT MCO plan qualities in terms of discrepancies between Pareto optimal and final deliverable plans, and dosimetric impact of final deliverable plans. In total, 25 computed tomography datasets of prostate cancer patients were used for Eclipse (version 16.1) and RayStation (version 12A) MCO-based plannings with doses received by 98% of planning target volume having 76 Gy prescription (PTV76D98%) and 50% of rectum (rectum D50%) selected as trade-off criteria. Pareto optimal and final deliverable plan discrepancies were determined based on PTV76D98% and rectum D50% percentage differences. Their final deliverable plans were compared in terms of doses received by PTV76 and other structures including rectum, and PTV76 homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI), using a t-test. Both systems showed discrepancies between Pareto optimal and final deliverable plans (Eclipse: -0.89% (PTV76D98%) and -2.49% (Rectum D50%); RayStation: 3.56% (PTV76D98%) and -1.96% (Rectum D50%)). Statistically significantly different average values of PTV76D98%,HI and CI, and mean dose received by rectum (Eclipse: 76.07 Gy, 0.06, 1.05 and 39.36 Gy; RayStation: 70.43 Gy, 0.11, 0.87 and 51.65 Gy) are noted, respectively (p < 0.001). Eclipse MCO-based prostate RT plan quality appears better than that of RayStation.

Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach

A previous study investigated robustness of manual flash (MF) and robust optimized (RO) volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for breast radiotherapy based on five patients in 2020 and indicated that the RO was more robust than the MF, although the MF is still current standard practice. The purpose of this study was to compare their plan robustness in terms of dose variation to clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) based on a larger sample size. This was a retrospective study involving 34 female patients. Their plan robustness was evaluated based on measured volume/dose difference between nominal and worst scenarios (ΔV/ΔD) for each CTV and OARs parameter, with a smaller difference representing greater robustness. Paired sample t-test was used to compare their robustness values. All parameters (except CTV ΔD98%) of the RO approach had smaller ΔV/ΔD values than those of the MF. Also, the RO approach had statistically significantly smaller ΔV/ΔD values (p < 0.001-0.012) for all CTV parameters except the CTV ΔV95% and ΔD98% and heart ΔDmean. This study's results confirm that the RO approach was more robust than the MF in general. Although both techniques were able to generate clinically acceptable plans for breast radiotherapy, the RO could potentially improve workflow efficiency due to its simpler planning process.